Conference "Climate Change, Social Stress and Violent Conflict" November 19 and 20, 2009, Hamburg, Deutschland “PROTECTED” AREAS AS POTENTIAL VIOLENT CONFLICT THEATRE Guillermo Andres Ospina Anthropologist, Sustainable Development Master Researcher Grupo de Estudios Sociales Comparativos (GESC) Coordinator Society and Environment Team Universidad del Cauca, Popayán - Colombia gospina@unicauca.edu.co
“Protected” areas changing! In the broader sense, conservation and protected area ideas have as pre-requisite the recognition of a “nature” at danger and threatened by “no-rational” forms of human interventions
Feelings of human responsibility with nature at danger support a global political position, establishes parameters for what must be protected as well as the strategies and means to become effective this protection
Initial ideas demands for conservation [preservation] to “pristine nature” in their “pure state” ( wilderness ), “virgin” to perpetuity and untouched, intangible…
Fortunately, these essentialist ideas beginning to collapse in their bases owing to a renovate thinking about effects (tangible and potentials) of global environmental change, and the call to think in adaptation more than to evict change with police means
It seems to be that initial ideas of conservation in strict sense dictated by philanthropic and tecno-scientific vision as the only way to “save” the planet was deeply bound on reject of change
The force of this argument has been based on the necessity of protecting for different means objects at risk that bears to irreversible changes in the ecosystems induced by human actions
Extent of protected areas at global scale is considered around 21.5 millions squares km represented in 117.905 places under different national and international categories (WDPA 2006)
These areas and their targets, have considered as strategic spaces for development of nations , a matter of national security and a clear answer for mitigation and adaptation to potential climate change effects … [?]
168 signatory countries of the Convention on Biological Diversity have assumed the commitment of emitting politicians focused to biodiversity conservation, declare and guarantee protected areas management
Scale and representation matters Polygons of protected areas under IUCN categories, other national Categories and international sites
Points distribution representing protected areas under IUCN categories, international placer and other areas under national categories
Global distribution of protected areas by geopolitical region Central America (25.6%) South America (22.1%) North America (17.8%) East Asia (16.1%) South-East Asia (16%) Southern Africa (15.9%) Caribbean (15.5%) Brazil (15.3%) Europe (12.4%) Australia/New Zealand (10.4%) Western and Central Africa (10.1%) Pacific (9.9%) North Africa and Middle East (9.5%) North Eurasia (8.1%) South Asia (7.6%) Antarctic (0%) By number of sites Europe summarize 43,837, North Eurasia 17,719 and North America 13,414 (Chape et al. 2005 cited in Lockwood 2006).
Why protected areas can contribute to get security against potential impacts of climatic change? Would protected areas help to prevent or mitigate potential conflicts derived from climatic change and demands for resources?
An important aspect to consider in spatial analysis is the “insular” condition of the most protected areas, increasing the risk that threats coming from the matrix precipitate its fragmentation and disappearing ( border effect ) like functional areas for ecological processes
Insular system example: protected areas under IUCN categories, other national Categories and international sites
But threats could be coming from the inside of protected areas… in some cases are clearly bound to human activities as colonisation processes and exploitation of valuable resources in illicit markets. However, ecosystems can change also for alterations in biophysical conditions generated for example by climate change…
“Wilderness” in conflict When pristine natures ( wilderness ) become a conflict matter? In a wide sense, the classic conflict faced by conservation idea [in strict sense], has derived from two opposed visions respect nature: - by one hand, the vision of those who consider the nature as resource animals, plants, minerals, etc.) with use value and/or change value to service of human necessities; - for the other, the vision of those who claim the necessity and human responsibility of conserving the nature (biodiversity) for their intrinsic value
In administration of conservation areas, had been necessary control and punish models in search for “guaranteeing” conservation… In many countries protected areas are watched for armed officials to control hunters, loggers and traffickers of illicit objects [is not my case]
What happens with protected areas and conservation agents in countries or regions with violent conflicts? How social agents of conservation adapt their intervention strategies when protected areas are theatre of war?
Among potential consequences of war and civil conflict on protected areas are considered the damages on natural ecosystems, cultural inheritance, infrastructure and human life (Graeme et al. 2006)
Biophysical and social characteristics of protected areas offer an ideal theatre to armed actor’s participating in violent conflicts as a strategic geopolitical position ( refuge ) in terrain control to confrontation and disputes, particularly in irregular war or guerrilla’s warfare Buhaug, Gates and Lujala (2009) using a functional model show that “geographic factors such as location, terrain and natural resources, interact with rebel fighting capacity and together play a crucial role in determining the duration of conflict”
Conserving in war Advances in Colombian case study: National Parks in violent conflict context
To talk about conservation and protected areas in Colombia, its necessary consider the incidence of internal armed conflict, like a direct threat impacting the governance of sites located in remote regions key to armed actors and their confrontation dynamics
National parks in Colombia, a country with biodiversity and endemic political violence (corruption, impunity), offer conditions to develop illicit activities such as drugs production, traffic of weapons and refuge of illegal armed groups that control extensive regions inside and beyond national territory (sometimes)
From perception of park’s managers affected by problems of insecurity , armed conflict is the main limitation for institutional interventions (governance) in protected areas; nevertheless the operative capacity of parks has been increased due to projects of international cooperation
“Impacts of armed conflict in environment are highly variable and may be positive in some areas and negative in others” (Ham et al. 2002)
Anti-personal Mines In the world, were reported in 2007 a total of 5.426 victims for anti-personal mines, mainly in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Colombia, Kosovo and Palestine (Landmine Monitor 2007) Colombia according with Presidential Program for the Integral Action Against Mines Antipersonal, registered between 1990 and September of 2009 a total 8.034 victims of mines (5.232 of them had been military) and a total of 1.792 deaths between civil and military (in press).
Exponential growth of mined fields in the country is disturbing in terms of security. Until January 2006, had been geo-referenced points of incidents of mines in 17 protected areas . The parks that have presented bigger number of incidents for mined fields are Nudo de Paramillo and Sierra de la Macarena, both present illicit crops and territorial cores to Paramilitares (AUC) in the first case and Guerrilla (FARC) in the second.
Illicit crops In 2005 were detected 6.100 hectares of coca in 12 protected areas… The increase was given in La Macarena , La Paya and Paramillo parks. Macarena had 50% of coca crops in whole National Parks System. From 17 protected areas with mined points geo-referenced, eight (8) coincide with illicit crops.
Forced displacement Number of displaced people by conflicts during the last decades up from 17.5 million in 1997 to 25 million people in 2005 (UNHCR, 2006) In the case of the forced displacement, around 4 million people they have been displaced in Colombia from 1985 (United Nations).
Land abandonment Nobody had taste what quantity of hectares have been removed from their owners neither how many can recover to be returned them A study disclosed in the 2006 by the Contraloria points out that in five regions 287.500 displaced families left its lands abandoned: 2,9 million hectares between the 2001 and the 2006
More than numbers… … 4.8 million hectares changed of owner for forced displacement between 1995 and 2003 (Codhes). … 6.8 million hectares leaved by displaced people ( Accion Social and the Comision Nacional de Reparacion y Reconciliacion). … 14 million hectares ( Movimiento de Victimas de Crimenes de Estado ) Lands taken for paramilitaries, guerrillas or narcos . We don’t know how many people really had been displaced or murdered from national parks and surrounding areas for armed conflict actors
Recommend
More recommend
